Wild cheers erupted from tens of thousands of demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square after word spread that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has resigned. Demonstrators chanted "Egypt is free!" upon hearing the news.

So, what happened in Iran had nothing to do with what we saw in Tunisia and are seeing in Egypt.

I don't understand why this is a big deal to you?

But it doesn't matter. Iran didn't start anything either -- it was a populous "color" revolution in the vein of many before it. Just as Tunisia was, and Egypt was, and Yemen and the like are and continue to be.

To say that these events all happen in a vacuum without affecting one another, especially as they all reference one another during their demonstrations, is foolhardy.

I give Bush immense credit for embracing a philosophy that supported democratizing the Middle East. I think that philosophy does come out and does pay dividends, even in the face of what I consider to be disasterous policy blunders and poisonous decisions that make the process more difficult than it needs to be.

No President before Bush paid stronger lip service or, however faulty, actual service, to liberating the Middle East than he did. Any credit to Americans for helping this process must be partially distributed to Bush.

But it wasn't his head in the way or a policeman's bullet. It wasn't his chest underneathe a camel hoof. And it wasn't his fight.

The hardest work was done, and the largest amount of the credit belongs, to the Egyptian people who have done superb work minimalizing personal harm & property, and maintaining their principles through the end.

Let's face it. Any success on the part of freedom in the Middle East owes a great deal of credit to the American liberation of Iraq for getting the ball rolling.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

But it doesn't matter. Iran didn't start anything either -- it was a populous "color" revolution in the vein of many before it. Just as Tunisia was, and Egypt was, and Yemen and the like are and continue to be.

To say that these events all happen in a vacuum without affecting one another, especially as they all reference one another during their demonstrations, is foolhardy.

Because you wrote this: "Iran's failure to overthrow their autocrats was a moral victory that put down an emotional deposit that Tunisia, Egypt, and soon other countries have started to cash."

Again, I don't see any evidence that what has happened in Iran had any bearing on what happened in Tunisia and Egypt.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

Let's face it. Any success on the part of freedom in the Middle East owes a great deal of credit to the American liberation of Iraq for getting the ball rolling.

Mmm... Not sure I'd go that far.

Although it certainly had an effect. Democracy and self-governance is such a powerful force that even in the face of overwhelming violence, Iraqis turned out in phenomenal numbers to vote, in an exercise of power that had to have made others who lack that self-determination long for it.

I don't say this lightly, because this is such a wonderful day. But you consistently say really silly things when it comes to foreign policy.

Says the gal who gives her support in colored font and flowery words about the Middle East?

I'm fully aware that "hope and change" are enough for people like you and I'm glad that it makes you feel better, but you don't have ANY evidence that what happened in Iran had any bearing on Tunisia and Egypt.

If Iran was the catalyst, why did the Egyptians wait until now to revolt?

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?